Author
Topic: New Lenses Coming [CR3] (Read 28479 times)

Right, my whole point about mentioning a new 50mm 1.4 at a decent price is that just about every enthusiast who owns a Canon would get one sooner or later. At around the $500 mark, even the less enthusiastic might save up money and get one, it could be a huge seller. Sadly, I agree, it will probably cost more like something around $800 or more, which again will be too much for me for a basic prime.Sometimes I wonder if companies realize that they could sell more if they lowered the price of a item. Makes me think of Adobe Photoshop. I cant afford the full suite, and actually Photoshop does way more than I would need it to. A Photoshop version geared towards photographers for $300 or so, count me in. (I know, Lightroom does a lot of the same stuff, but you know what I'm saying).

Right, my whole point about mentioning a new 50mm 1.4 at a decent price is that just about every enthusiast who owns a Canon would get one sooner or later. At around the $500 mark, even the less enthusiastic might save up money and get one, it could be a huge seller. Sadly, I agree, it will probably cost more like something around $800 or more, which again will be too much for me for a basic prime.Sometimes I wonder if companies realize that they could sell more if they lowered the price of a item. Makes me think of Adobe Photoshop. I cant afford the full suite, and actually Photoshop does way more than I would need it to. A Photoshop version geared towards photographers for $300 or so, count me in. (I know, Lightroom does a lot of the same stuff, but you know what I'm saying).

That's why I hope a 50mm f/1.4 "Mark II" lacks IS, so as to keep the price lower and the size of the lens smaller, though I do realize that those who shoot video will want IS.

Well, maybe I don't know what you mean by your term "general photography" but no matter my camera's ISO performance I'll take the shallower depth of field any day. What you say most people don't "give a flying eff" about is one of my primary concerns.

Me, I shoot advertising at f/5.6 to f/16. Sometimes I need a Tilt-and-Shift lens to INCREASE my DOF. I once shot an ad with a EF-S 10-22mm lens at f/16. So, yes I'd buy a 24mm f/2.8. YMMV

Architecture Photographers use Wide Angle Tilt-and-Shift lenses for increased DOF, because that's what their clients want/need.

What about Landscape Photographers

Yes, there are many photographers who don't give a Flying Eff about shallow DOF.

But, there are many who do. The problem is that you have defined your type of photography as 'general' and relegated certain other types to the status of esoteric and unimportant.

Let me ask you this. You believe that you do "general photography" and you use a tilt shift lens to do it? Yeah, right, that's a lens every "general photographer" has in their kit.

A small, flat, inconspicuous lens released with a bulky and far-from-inconspicuous dSLR. Ummm...why?

+1 A Pancake lens would seem to be better mated to a mirrorless body, not a dSLR. Judging by the MSRPs for the 24mm and 28mm f/2.8 IS lenses, I'm sure this will cost a lot and they'll probably charge extra for the syrup!

I had that lens in my signature as a wish lens for severel weeks. It would be the perfect companion for a 5D and a great standard lens (on the long side) for crop cameras.

I love the 24mm on my 40D as a single walk around solution (aside my 60mm macro) but I waited for a 40mm pancake - hopefully with ultimate quality - to have the option to go full frame with a 5D.

In our times of bulky standard zooms or large standard lenses a pancake makes absolutely sense: It converts a standard (D)SLR into a high quality cam with moderate compactness.

Just f/2.8 is a bit disappointing, f/2.0 had been great but ... if it is a 4-lens 3-group system with one aspherical lens it might be the winner in terms of quality: High contrast, very low flare, very good sharpness, no distortion, ultra fast AF (very low mass of focusing group) ...

canon rumors FORUM

I'm not complaining about the price of the 200-400. There is probably a lot of technology in it, and they aren't going to sell too many of them in comparison to everyday lenses. But my question is this: how many pictures of birds and wildlife do you need to sell to pay off a lens like that - not even including profit?

The folks questioning the necessity of pancake lenses on DSLRs have clearly never used the Voigt 20mm Color Skopar or any of the fantastic options available for Pentax bodies. The Zeiss Tessar has tempted me in the past as well...